4 ms·

I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. Legislation from congress and signed by the executive will be ne

I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. Legislation from congress and signed by the executive will be needed.

tehwalrus 13y ago
But the article implies that the only reason the regulations are invalid is that they didn't designate them CCs. At least, that's how I read it.
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  I'm trying to find it. but my point is, the FCC did not have the authority to designate them as Common Carriers. as Common Carrier status is defined by the Communications Act of 1930 something and Telecommunications act of 1996.
gergles 13y ago
No, that's wrong. They specifically did not call ISPs common carriers - they tried to give them the obligations of common carriers without reclassifying them, because they wanted to avoid a lengthy legal fight from the ISPs (who certainly do not want to be common carriers, because that eliminates their ability to charge troll tolls.)
guelo 13y ago
I don't think that's right. The ruling is that the FCC was regulating broadband companies as common carriers even though they're not classified as common carriers. But the FCC is the one who has the authority to classify them as common carriers. I don't really understand why the FCC didn't do that from the start.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. No, the ruling specifically found that the problem is that the FCC has: 1) declared that broadband providers provide an "information service" (on which common carrier requirements can not be imposed) rather than a "telecommunication service" (on which they can be imposed), and 2) imposed the kind of regulations that are essential to treatment of common carriers. I.e., that the FCC has both declared that ISPs are not common carriers but than regulated them (in some respects) as if they were. There's obviously two ways to resolve this contradiction.

I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. Legislation from congress and signed by the executive will be needed.

tehwalrus 13y ago

But the article implies that the only reason the regulations are invalid is that they didn't designate them CCs. At least, that's how I read it.

ericcumbee 13y ago
I'm trying to find it. but my point is, the FCC did not have the authority to designate them as Common Carriers. as Common Carrier status is defined by the Communications Act of 1930 something and Telecommunications act of 1996.

gergles 13y ago

No, that's wrong. They specifically did not call ISPs common carriers - they tried to give them the obligations of common carriers without reclassifying them, because they wanted to avoid a lengthy legal fight from the ISPs (who certainly do not want to be common carriers, because that eliminates their ability to charge troll tolls.)

guelo 13y ago

I don't think that's right. The ruling is that the FCC was regulating broadband companies as common carriers even though they're not classified as common carriers. But the FCC is the one who has the authority to classify them as common carriers. I don't really understand why the FCC didn't do that from the start.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. No, the ruling specifically found that the problem is that the FCC has: 1) declared that broadband providers provide an "information service" (on which common carrier requirements can not be imposed) rather than a "telecommunication service" (on which they can be imposed), and 2) imposed the kind of regulations that are essential to treatment of common carriers. I.e., that the FCC has both declared that ISPs are not common carriers but than regulated them (in some respects) as if they were. There's obviously two ways to resolve this contradiction.